On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness • Hacker News Board

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#471

Post by tachyonbeam » Tue, May 04, 2021, 7:51 PM UTC

dnissley wrote: post #429

thelean12 wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you can't get women, it's entirely your fault I'm curious, and this will probably be too curt but I am honestly trying to figure it out: Whose fault is it? Because incels believe it's the women's fault, and this message is the opposite. It doesn't seem productive to tell them that it's society's fault or some other external thing. What are they supposed to do about that? Most men that I know, including myself, f…

I think the answer would go along the same lines as answering the question "whose fault is it that you can't get a job?" when aimed at an identity category such as women or minorities. Basically: society has failed them in some form or other.

I think this is the right way to look at it. This is why I gave myself as an example. I was raised by a mentally ill single parent in poverty. I wasn't taught how to socialize with others in a healthy way. As a result, I wasn't equipped to form healthy relationships.

I think there are a lot of young men who are in a similar position and if they are given proper guidance and healthy role models when they are young, they can be in a better position to succeed in friendships, work and relationships.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#472

Post by standardUser » Tue, May 04, 2021, 7:51 PM UTC

commandlinefan wrote: post #226

torben-friis wrote: post #2

>I can choose to pity or hate him, but having chosen I can’t pretend the choice didn’t exist; it’s something I had to do. I've had to face similar situations in my family life, and this part really resonated with me. It's an extremely eloquent way of capturing something I've never been able to put into words. Thank you for that.

I'm really worried for my teenage son. Dating was brutal when I was doing it 20 years ago, and as far as I can tell, it's gotten so, so much worse since. Modern dating can't literally be "winner take all", but it sure looks like it's getting close.

I strongly disagree, but my evidence is all anecdotal. I'm not saying that literally every guy can find a partner, but I have seen all manner of men end up with perfectly lovely partners (and/or occasional sex partners). And when I say "all manner" I mean dumb guys, ugly guys, short guys, guys with terrible hygiene. The spectrum of men I have personally witnessed have success with women is vast and diverse and even kind of disgusting.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#473

Post by jimbokun » Tue, May 04, 2021, 7:52 PM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #171

textgel wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a core belief of progressivism; those who claim it isn't know it is but are interested in protecting a movement that gives them a means of attacking those they dislike.

It absolutely isn't. Progressives, when they see inequality of outcomes at the group level , correctly identify an inequality of opportunity. There's no progressive in the world that thinks that everyone should have the same outcomes. That's different from wanting similar outcomes between groups of millions of people, because those almost invariably come from inequality of opportunity. I don't know of any left tenden…

> That's different from wanting similar outcomes between groups of millions of people, because those almost invariably come from inequality of opportunity.

Can you cite any evidence that this is the case? It seems you are simply defining inequality of outcome to mean the same thing as inequality of opportunity at the group level.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#474

Post by [deleted] » Tue, May 04, 2021, 7:52 PM UTC

Trasmatta wrote: post #105

thepasswordis wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is basically a red flag for any relationship. No it isn't. My grandparents, who were married for 60 years had this mentality. My wife's grandparents, who were married for a similar amount of time, also shared this mentality. My wife's parents still share this mentality (and are obviously completely devoted to one another, which you will notice if you spend about 5 seconds with them). My parents divorced, which…

> There is a bizarre (and imo destructive, and toxic) idea that seems to be running through tech especially that devotion to your partner is rooted in "jealousy" I feel like you're responding to a different argument than the one that was posed above. They weren't saying that a deep devotion to your partner is bad at all. They were saying that if you're miserable every moment you're not with your partner, there is lik…

[deleted]

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#475

Post by kelnos » Tue, May 04, 2021, 7:52 PM UTC

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote: post #415

silicon2401 wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Way to dogpile on people when they're down. > They're just jealous you can travel and play video games whenever you want. =) This comment comes off defensive and hypocritical to me, rather than contributing to the conversation. You're basically saying we shouldn't talk about good things if some people don't have those good things; and also screw people with good things because they're actually jealous of the have-n…

I have been single, then married, then single again. I can tell that for me single is better. So for each one its own. It irks me when someone tells other people what is good for them.

I don't think anyone is doing that. It's just the case that many (most?) people are happier and more fulfilled in a committed, long term relationship. It doesn't mean that there aren't people for whom that's not the case, and it doesn't mean that those people are somehow defective.

But this entire post is about how some people get sad, angry, and/or hateful when they want to be in a relationship but continually fail at it. It seems off-topic and missing the point to bring up a "well, actually" about how some people don't want or need that.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#476

Post by spoonjim » Tue, May 04, 2021, 7:52 PM UTC

sjg007 wrote: post #413

spoonjim wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For sure. Most heterosexual women would prefer sex every 10 days with a very sexually appealing man who is having sex with 9 other women than having sex every day with an average-looking exclusive Schlub. The latter was their life under the proscription of extramarital sex but Tinder allows them the former.

Is there a research study on this? I'm not sure I buy into the Don Juan hypothesis.

The numbers in the article itself state that more 18-29 year old women than men are having sex. Excluding gay sex this implies the “Don Juan hypothesis” as you call it.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#477

Post by c22 » Tue, May 04, 2021, 7:54 PM UTC

x86ARMsRace wrote: post #84

Supermancho wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So it's not old age, but youth in his case that was unhappy until he met his wife. Some people feel the existential dread before it is realized. This is shared by both sexes and sometimes expressed at absurdly young ages without prompting.

Yes, that's absolutely correct. In my case at least I remember occasionally waking up when I was very young in hysterics because of general existential dread related to death.

I remember becoming interested in finding a life partner from as young as 7 or 8. I spent my teens and early 20s turning off girls with my seriousness and didn't manage to get laid until my late 20s. I was sore about it at the time, but in retrospect I'm glad I didn't meet with more success because I likely would have ended up marrying someone who would not have been a suitable lifelong match.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#478

Post by standardUser » Tue, May 04, 2021, 7:54 PM UTC

Igelau wrote: post #422

rc-1140 wrote: post #279

One thing about the post in its entirety, not just the content, that really stood out to me was that there was a commenter "kayla" who behaved exactly in the manner that the author outlined when talking about the "feminist" and "MRA" subgroups. They immediately jumped onto the aggressor's bandwagon, saying that the lowercase-i incels were simply too lazy to fix their problems even though extremely-generalized and dis…

Kayla's suggestion about prostitution was positively revolting. That position seems to hate just about everyone: incels should just go solve their problem illegally in a way that happens to be the antithesis of feminism.

Sex work is in no way, shape or form the "antithesis of feminism". And I think it was clear that Kayla was suggesting that such work not be illegal, not that men go solve their problem in an illegal manner.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#479

Post by 2lwxxtj » Tue, May 04, 2021, 7:55 PM UTC

Pfhreak wrote: post #19

edgyquant wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah people who say this are so wrong, companionship and a significant other is a required for a fulfilled life for a majority of people. We evolved to have this, and most people need it. You shouldn’t depend on one for happiness, but there is nothing wrong or weird about longing for one.

On the flip side, however, no one owes you companionship or a relationship (platonic or not). If you are struggling to fulfill that need, it's on you to improve yourself through building skills, seeking therapy, finding appropriate medications, or whatever else. Pushing the blame outwards to some other group for not bending to fulfill your needs is a real problematic stance.

>no one owes you companionship or a relationship (platonic or not).

That's your opinion.

>is a real problematic stance.

Oh, no, not problematic! What if there are actually external factors that influence your ability to succeed, and you would like to advocate for modifying those external factors to increase your ability to succeed?

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#480

Post by parineum » Tue, May 04, 2021, 7:55 PM UTC

Loughla wrote: post #264

parineum wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is because low-income and minority students are more likely to be tracked low performing in lower grades Are they actually lower performing or is this an effect of bias? It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that children with less resources do worse. I thought the purpose of performance tracking was to give the ability to help those who were struggling. Instead, you're saying that it's more helpful to just…

Edited for clarity. >Are they actually lower performing or is this an effect of bias? This is why these programs in early grades are eliminated - they absolutely were based on bias and external factors. Yes, children with less resources do worse. That was the problem. Students with less access would be tracked low, thereby ensuring they had access to even fewer resources (which were diverted to high performers and TA…

That makes much more sense although the argument I'd make is still that the issue wasn't the tracking and grouping, it was the allocation of resources. The schools/policy makers have to allocate resources in a zero sum way which makes the question whether to help those who are struggling or push those who are excelling, both, I think, are worthy motives.

The shame in all of this is that the choice has to be made at all. I think, ideally, every student should have a roughly equal amount of attention and dollars allocated to them and if a school is underfunded, everyone suffers until the problem is remediated.

I suspect there's some sort of incentive on the administrators of these schools, be through funding, personal career advancement or something else, that makes them want to max out the top end rather than raise the low end.